情绪创造力对员工创新行为的影响:情绪社会建构理论的视角

基于情绪社会建构理论,运用问卷调查法,通过分析708组配对数据,探讨情绪创造力对员工创新行为的影响机制。结果表明:情绪创造力对员工创新行为有显著的正向影响,创造性角色认同在其中具有部分中介作用;员工情绪创造力与领导激励创造性的交互作用通过员工创造性角色认同为中介,影响员工的创新行为,从而表现出有中介的调节作用。     

师生关系对小学生创造性的作用:一个有调节的中介模型

以658名儿童为被试,采用测验法和问卷法考察师生关系与小学生创造性思维的关系,同时探析创新自我效能感的中介作用,以及该作用是否受到开放性人格的调节。结果发现:(1)师生关系对小学生创造性思维、创新效能感均有显著的正向预测作用;(2)创新效能感在师生关系与小学生创造性思维总分、流畅性和独特性得分之间起完全中介作用;(3)开放性可以调节创新效能感对小学生创造性思维的作用,开放性高时效能感的中介效应显著,而开放性低时该效应不显著。这些结果对于综合解释教育过程中环境与个体因素对创造性的作用路径与机制具有重要意义。     

创造性思维的社会文化基础

创造性思维作为创造性的内核, 是个体在一定社会文化背景上产生新颖独特且实用观点或产品的思维形式。文章基于社会文化的三层次模型, 分别从文化观念、文化活动或经历以及文化工具三个层面, 围绕人性价值观、中庸取向、非价值性文化传统、海外旅居、多语种学习、以及文化工具所涵盖的文化规则、符号和实物七个方面阐述了社会文化对创造性思维的影响。未来研究有必要在此基础上继续从文化与社会因素的依存性、个体差异控制、文化和创造性思维的类型差异以及多重研究取向协作四方面深入。     

青少年创造性思维的特点及其对日常创造性行为的影响：人格的中介作用

采用言语和空间创造力测验、青少年人格问卷、中学生日常创造性行为问卷对1048名中学生施测,考查青少年创造性思维的特点,并探讨创造性思维、人格对日常创造性行为的影响.结果发现:(1)女生在言语创造力的流畅性、灵活性维度以及图形创造力各维度的得分均显著高于男生;高一年级的言语创造力流畅性、灵活性维度显著高于其他三个年级,高一年级的图形创造力质量维度显著高于初二、高二年级;(2)言语创造力与人格的开放性和外向性、语言文学、文艺表演和社会活动维度呈显著正相关.图形创造力与开放性、语言文学、文艺表演和手工技术呈显著正相关;(3)开放性和外向性在言语创造力和创造性行为之间起完全中介作用,在图形创造力上中介作用不显著.具体到创造性行为的各个领域,开放性和外向性在创造性思维和创造性行为间起着不同的作用.     

创造性思维与认知抑制的关系

抑制是创造性思维过程中的一种重要的认知加工机制。创造性思维与认知抑制的关系主要有三种观点：创造性思维的认知去抑制假说、认知抑制假说和适应性认知抑制假说。本文系统评述了创造性思维与认知抑制关系的相关理论、研究新进展和神经机制。未来研究应加强创造性思维与认知抑制关系的理论整合与构建,分析创造性思维的不同阶段的认知抑制机制,采用无意抑制与有意抑制研究范式,对创造性思维与认知抑制的关系、影响因素及神经机制进行深入研究。     

创新氛围、创新效能感与团队创新：团队领导的调节作用

在团队层次探讨创新氛围、创新效能感以及团队领导对团队创新绩效的影响。对51个工作团队的研究结果表明, 团队创新氛围与团队创新绩效有显著的正向关系, 而团队创新效能感在这一关系中起到中介作用。同时, 引领创新的团队领导调节了创新效能感与团队创新绩效之间的关系, 团队领导越倾向于引领创新, 创新效能感与创新绩效之间的关系就越强, 经由创新效能感传导的创新氛围对创新绩效的效应也就越大。研究结果深刻揭示了创新氛围、创新效能感、创新领导和团队创新之间的关系。     

工作-家庭支持对员工创造力的影响探讨

采用问卷调查法, 以773对上级-下属配对数据为样本, 探讨了工作-家庭支持对员工创造力的影响及其内在作用机制。结果表明, 在我国文化背景下, 工作-家庭支持由组织支持、领导支持、情感性支持和工具性支持四个因素组成, 其中组织支持和领导支持统称为工作领域支持, 情感性支持和工具性支持统称为家庭领域支持; 工作投入中介工作领域支持对员工创造力的影响; 创造性人格在工作投入与员工创造力关系之间起调节作用。     

个体变量、材料变量对大学生创造性问题提出能力的影响

研究以139名大学生为被试,采用2(信息素养:高、低)×2(批判性思维倾向:强、弱)×2(信息量:高、低)×2(批判情境:有、无)四因素混合设计,考察个体变量和材料变量对创造性问题提出能力的影响。结果显示:(1)从个体变量看,批判性思维倾向在信息素养预测创造性问题提出能力时起调节作用;(2)从材料变量看,信息量高且含批判情境的材料对创造性问题提出能力有促进作用;(3)个体变量和材料变量在灵活性和独创性上存在交互作用。高信息素养或强批判性思维倾向的被试在含批判情境材料下灵活性、独创性表现更好;低信息素养或弱批判性思维倾向的学生在无批判情境材料下灵活性表现更好,在两种批判情境下独创性无显著差异。     

MANIPULATION OF POTENTIAL PUNISHMENT PARAMETERS IN THE TREATMENT OF SELF-INJURY1

The self-injurious behavior (SIB) of a blind, profoundly retarded male was observed within a field setting as multiple forms of punishment were applied. The effects of hair-tug punishment were first systematically examined, then hair-tug and electric shock punishment were administered in varing ratios (of punishment deliveries per SIB response) supplemented by continuous restraint contingencies and made contingent on recurrent antecedents of SIB cycles. Treatments were applied over six months of consecutive daily sessions ranging from 30 min to 8 hr duration. Posttreatment followup observations were taken 12, 24, and 34 months after treatment. Partial suppression was produced as a direct function of hair-tug punishment in the initial phase. A generally progressive decrement was produced on already lowered SIB rates with the succeeding components of the treatment package. Extended periods of total SIB suppression occurred as punishment was rendered contingent on antecedent components of each SIB response cycle. Followup observations of nearly 3 yr duration indicated total suppression generalized over all settings in which the subject functioned. The findings were related to the contrasting limits prevailing in most reports of punishment-based SIB suppression.     

Creative reasoning in formal discussion

Systems of formal dialectics articulate methods of conflict resolution. To this end they provide norms to regulate verbal exchanges between the Proponent of a thesis and an Opponent. These regulated exchanges constitute what are known as formal discussions.One may ask what moves, if any, in formal discusions correspond to arguing for or against the thesis. It is claimed that certain moves of the Proponent's are properly designated as arguing for the thesis, and that certain moves of the Opponent purport to criticize the tenability or the relevance of the reasons advanced. Thus the usefulness of formal dialectic systems as models for reasonable argument is vindicated.It is then proposed to make these systems more realistic by incorporating in them a norm of Creative Reasoning that removes the severe restrictions to which the Proponent's arguing was hitherto subject. As a consequence, a certain type of irrelevant reason is no longer automatically excluded. Therefore, it is proposed to extend the Opponent's rights to exert relevance criticism. The new dialectic systems are shown to be strategically equivalent to the original ones. Finally, it is stressed that the Opponent's criticism should not be designated as arguing against the thesis. The Opponent criticizes, but does not argue.